I occasionally check out the map on the drought monitor website. The current map does not look significantly different than maps I have seen over the past 10 years.
The areas of extreme drought may change each year, but the total area affected seems rather ordinary to me.
> Meteorologists and climatologists from the NDMC, NOAA and USDA take turns as the lead author of the map, usually two weeks a time. The author’s job is to do something that a computer can’t. When the data is pointing in different directions, they make sense out of it.
> How do we know when we're in a drought?
> No single piece of evidence tells the full story, and neither do strictly physical indicators. That’s why the USDM isn’t a statistical model
> The essential message is that weather and climate data do not support the claims of extreme or severe drought in eastern Washington this year.
> There is no expectation of water problems over or near the Columbia Basin. The Drought Monitor graphics, which are created subjectively, are sufficiently problematic and deficient that they should not be considered or applied to any serious decision making.
cliff is an expert but also famously sort of a "climate contrarian" and his takes are regularly cited by climate skeptics and conservative irritants here in the PNW. just noting his takes don't exist in a vacuum.
I like the map. It's usually on track but sometimes it's quite a bit off. I've seen it say drought when it's been wet --maybe just not as wet as usual. It also doesn't indicate when above average and I do not think it averages precip out when a wet week was extremely wet and the next one dry. It'll say it was dry last week. In other words you could have cumulative average precip but it's only counting last week's precipitation.
> [Authors] bring together the physical climate, weather and hydrology data and reconcile that with local expert feedback, impact reports and conditions observations. The author is also responsible for weighing different indicators based on what’s most appropriate for a particular place and time of year. In the West, for example, winter snowpack has a stronger bearing on water supplies than in the East
i think calling it "subjective opinion" is kind of disingenuous. it is a subject matter expert interpreting the data. there is a vast gulf between that and someone else simply offering their opinion on the matter.
I worked in weather for TV as a technician and I was lucky enough to work with meteorologists. I thought they were high priests in the church of science, however, I detected a gambling mentality going on.
I was just surprised at how subjective their work was, with differing opinions regarding the big picture depending on whom you asked and what their background was, as in university, whether they had worked for the navy or whether they had worked for the government.
The big surprise of the gambling mentality reminded me of people that dedicate their lives to losing as much money as possible betting on horses. These people know the form, the weather and so much, yet they do their own bets.
It was kind of the same when working out what the weather would be in Springfield tomorrow. Would it just be cloudy or actual rain? That would be a 'bet'.
The next day the observations would come in and the meteorologists would either win or lose their 'bet'. The guy who has been to Springfield and knows the local geography well would have his own reasons for his 'bet', whereas the guy who was more interested in long term storm development would have another rationale for his 'bet'.
Then there would be 'wrong all the time me', able to look at the low level cloud from contrails (which are really huge in some wavelengths on the satellite pictures) to assume rain every day.
Hence climate and weather is highly subjective even if it is highly educated and vastly experienced professionals that are interpreting the data.
Title is somewhat incorrect: more than 60% of the U.S. is facing drought, making it overall the worst in decades. The data do not show that the drought in each area is the worst in decades.
In California during their droughts restaurants wouldn't give you a glass of water unless you asked for it. Maybe there's some compromise between that and pumping groundwater for datacenter cooling.
Plenty of places are using water faster than the aquifers they use regenerate. I hold no issue with banning using that limited freshwater resource for cooling.
In some places not strictly in drought the water cycle is still completely messed up. A few huge winter storms make up for lack of precipitation in the rest of the year and then promptly melts off. So the yearly average looks good on paper but it's dry as hell in summer/fire season with no snowmelt throughout the year.
I hope people will not buy into that weird conspiracy theory about the destroyed weather radars in Iraq and its consequences
Some odd comments on this. It's not a matter of debate, wheat futures reflect this.
Some odd comments and voting patterns on a lot of things. It's getting weird around here.
I occasionally check out the map on the drought monitor website. The current map does not look significantly different than maps I have seen over the past 10 years.
The areas of extreme drought may change each year, but the total area affected seems rather ordinary to me.
The drought map used here is partly subjective opinion.
https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/About/WhatistheUSDM.aspx
> Who draws the map?
> Meteorologists and climatologists from the NDMC, NOAA and USDA take turns as the lead author of the map, usually two weeks a time. The author’s job is to do something that a computer can’t. When the data is pointing in different directions, they make sense out of it.
> How do we know when we're in a drought?
> No single piece of evidence tells the full story, and neither do strictly physical indicators. That’s why the USDM isn’t a statistical model
Doesn't seem like all climate scientists are fans of it either. From a 2022 critique of a news story also based on this map:
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2022/04/is-large-portion-of-w...
> The essential message is that weather and climate data do not support the claims of extreme or severe drought in eastern Washington this year.
> There is no expectation of water problems over or near the Columbia Basin. The Drought Monitor graphics, which are created subjectively, are sufficiently problematic and deficient that they should not be considered or applied to any serious decision making.
cliff is an expert but also famously sort of a "climate contrarian" and his takes are regularly cited by climate skeptics and conservative irritants here in the PNW. just noting his takes don't exist in a vacuum.
I like the map. It's usually on track but sometimes it's quite a bit off. I've seen it say drought when it's been wet --maybe just not as wet as usual. It also doesn't indicate when above average and I do not think it averages precip out when a wet week was extremely wet and the next one dry. It'll say it was dry last week. In other words you could have cumulative average precip but it's only counting last week's precipitation.
And a lot of hard work, sounds like: https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/About/AbouttheData/DroughtCla...
> [Authors] bring together the physical climate, weather and hydrology data and reconcile that with local expert feedback, impact reports and conditions observations. The author is also responsible for weighing different indicators based on what’s most appropriate for a particular place and time of year. In the West, for example, winter snowpack has a stronger bearing on water supplies than in the East
It also sounds like that old adage of - All models are wrong but some are useful. Alas, we probably only know how useful they where afterwards.
i think calling it "subjective opinion" is kind of disingenuous. it is a subject matter expert interpreting the data. there is a vast gulf between that and someone else simply offering their opinion on the matter.
I worked in weather for TV as a technician and I was lucky enough to work with meteorologists. I thought they were high priests in the church of science, however, I detected a gambling mentality going on.
I was just surprised at how subjective their work was, with differing opinions regarding the big picture depending on whom you asked and what their background was, as in university, whether they had worked for the navy or whether they had worked for the government.
The big surprise of the gambling mentality reminded me of people that dedicate their lives to losing as much money as possible betting on horses. These people know the form, the weather and so much, yet they do their own bets.
It was kind of the same when working out what the weather would be in Springfield tomorrow. Would it just be cloudy or actual rain? That would be a 'bet'.
The next day the observations would come in and the meteorologists would either win or lose their 'bet'. The guy who has been to Springfield and knows the local geography well would have his own reasons for his 'bet', whereas the guy who was more interested in long term storm development would have another rationale for his 'bet'.
Then there would be 'wrong all the time me', able to look at the low level cloud from contrails (which are really huge in some wavelengths on the satellite pictures) to assume rain every day.
Hence climate and weather is highly subjective even if it is highly educated and vastly experienced professionals that are interpreting the data.
Title is somewhat incorrect: more than 60% of the U.S. is facing drought, making it overall the worst in decades. The data do not show that the drought in each area is the worst in decades.
Whether or not it's true, this is going to be great fodder for the people who believe AI is using up all the water.
What are your thoughts on that?
I hope to hear words like "bollocks" and "bullshit" dispersed equitably.
This might help you understand what should be the priorities for efficient water utilization (and reducing waste): https://www.construction-physics.com/p/how-does-the-us-use-w...
In California during their droughts restaurants wouldn't give you a glass of water unless you asked for it. Maybe there's some compromise between that and pumping groundwater for datacenter cooling.
Plenty of places are using water faster than the aquifers they use regenerate. I hold no issue with banning using that limited freshwater resource for cooling.
In some places not strictly in drought the water cycle is still completely messed up. A few huge winter storms make up for lack of precipitation in the rest of the year and then promptly melts off. So the yearly average looks good on paper but it's dry as hell in summer/fire season with no snowmelt throughout the year.